2017 (12) TMI 396

Head Note / Extract:Revisional jurisdiction under the FERA - Notice of contravention of Section 51 of FERA was taken by the Adjudicating officer within two years from the date of the repeal of FERA - Held that:- In the facts of the present case, the appellant is not without a remedy in the sense that a recourse can be taken to the remedies under the Constitution of India. The principle which governs Mimansa interpretation is that if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter or must be disregarded altogether. Where there is a conflict between the object and material, the object is to prevail the material being subordinate to the object. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant laid emphasis on the Mimansa principles by submitting that in absence of prescribed material, a substitute can be used.

We fail to understand how Mimansa principles can advance the cause of the appellant any further. In the present case, we are dealing with the revisional jurisdiction. As in case of an appeal, a revision is always creation of a Statute. There is no inherent power vesting in any appellate authority or superior authority to exercise the power of revision. Moreover, the remedy of revision is never as matter of right. Mimansa principles will not revive a nonexisting remedy of revision. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant based on Mimansa principles. Even if we apply Mimansa principles, it is impossible to accept the submission that a remedy of revision under the repealed Act was available to the appellant. Hence, we see no merit in the appeals. Appeals and Civil Applications are dismissed.